Originally posted by exponent
Originally posted by bsbray11
If you're ever not arguing against me, it's not that hard to preface what you're saying with "I agree." I haven't seen where you have been trying to
reach an agreement. All I've seen is you coming on here to antagonize what I say personally.
I'm not interested in your ego
It doesn't have anything to do with my ego. It has to do with you arguing with me, of course I am going to respond in the same antagonizing
character. If you don't want to change the way you're engaging here then don't complain when I reflect it at you.
just to point out that you're still repeating the same falsehoods that I addressed over 10 months ago
What falsehoods are these again? Stop making cheap shots. I have been refuting your posts constantly, post after post, even pointing out your
emotional outbursts for what they are, and this is one of those.
I'm trying to motivate you into action, but the only action appears to be complaining about the motivation
How's that recreation of the "drywall melted the steel" experiment going? All I see is a lot of time and energy spent bickering online with me. Pot,
They're comparable if you don't resort to simplistic analysis like 'look at this picture of a very bright fire in the dark!!!'.
So if the photos were taken during the day you think it would show the WTC fires were worse?
The simplistic analysis is yours. It goes like this: 'There was steel in the building and it all collapsed! The whole building didn't fall down
because it was made out of concrete!'
You ignore the fact that no, not all the steel did collapse, the steel in question had MUCH SMALLER CROSS-SECTIONS and thus wasn't comparable to the
WTC steel in the first place, you totally ignore the severity of the fires which is also incomparable, the time of burn, which is ALSO
incomparable, and then you don't bother giving any more reason for why it didn't totally collapsed except that it was made out of concrete. And then
you say I'm the one offering the simplistic analysis when you ignore all of this? You are embarrassing yourself.
If you actually look at what happened in the structures you'll understand why the Windsor Tower could never fail in the same way as the
If you faced the facts you might actually be able to realize that you still have no evidence that the WTC Towers collapsed from fires and planes alone
in the first place, and in the second place that you are ignoring 90% of the relevant information in these comparisons. You keep downplaying the
severity of the fires. You keep ignoring the differences in the steel. You are either in denial or intentionally being intellectually dishonest
about these things. And again, pointing at that the Windsor Tower's core was made of reinforced concrete is totally irrelevant because the WTC
Towers' cores weren't their weakness either. And their perimeter columns were much, much larger than the Windsor Towers. We can keep going over this
until it sinks into your brain matter. I guess that's what it will take. I'm not going to drop this information just because you keep ignoring it.
I'm going to keep bringing it up precisely because of that, until you acknowledge it.
Please tell me qualitatively the difference in severity of the fires.
The top of the Windsor Tower was fully engulfed and burned for a full 24 hours.
If you can't just LOOK at the photos and tell "qualitatively" what the difference is, you are not competent in speaking of anything else. Period.
Find the worst possible pic you can find of the WTC fires and compare it to this:
Pick any WTC fire pic you want. Do you honestly think it is equivalent to what you are looking at above? If so, like I said, you are only
demonstrating your incompetence at comparing these types of things in the first place. They are obviously not equal in severity, and the difference
IS extreme when you factor in the amount of time and the number of floors fully engulfed.
And be sure to find a picture of the WTC Towers that shows its perimeter columns being this small:
I guess you think that is comparable to the WTC perimeter columns too.
The cross sections of steel are somewhat important
"somewhat important," oh yeah, okay, right. I'll let the images speak for themselves. You have 4 or 5 times the amount of steel in the perimeter
columns AT LEAST at the WTC towers to heat, with less fire, over less time. Yeah, that's "somewhat important."
Put yourself in my shoes.
Your arguments are RIDICULOUS.
but as none of the steel in the WTC underwent the same failure modes I elected to focus on the more important aspects.
You still have no proof of what the WTC failure mechanism was. You keep falling back on nonsense that was never proven in the first place. Do you
think this is a religious debate?
What are you talking about, I brought up the factors that allowed the building to survive.
Like the fact that the Windsor Tower wasn't demolished? There's one factor that allowed it to continue standing.
How is that being biased?
See my response above, since the shoe is now on the other foot, maybe now it's a little easier to see where the bias is coming into play. You are
doing the same thing.
pointing out why one survived and one didn't.
Exactly, because one exploded in all directions to the ground and one didn't.
The intensity of fires are irrelevant as long as the difference is not extreme
Let me guess who gets to determine that. You?
You think the Windsor Tower fire is not
an extreme difference than the WTC fires? Being fully engulfed on those floors and burning for 12
times as long? What is
an extreme difference if not that?
Hell wood is better than steel under certain circumstances.
Yeah, I guess they should have built the WTC Towers out of wood. That's where they went wrong. You got me. What was I thinking?
I just like to have a 'holistic' view of the situation, rather than trying to focus on one aspect alone.
Down-playing the intensity of the fires and the cross-sections of the steel in favor some irrelevant "the core was concrete" excuse does not allow a
You just answered your own question, you seem to be projecting a hypothesis onto tests that were clearly for calibration, then complaining that
NIST tells you they were for calibration.
No, the problem is that they never tested their hypothesis, for the point of testing their hypothesis. They would have to have set up exactly what
they did to calibrate their computer simulations. Why didn't they do it again to reproduce their hypothesis physically? Because they're too genius
for that? Is that how your kind of "science" works? Let me guess, "yes." Sorry. Science is not based on condescension. You still have to show
your work, even NIST.
So you want them to redo the same experiment but on full scale and with full heating?
Is that what I said? Is that what was necessary to calibrate their computer simulations?
Why do you think it's impossible for a single truss to be isolated and reproduce the pulling on the perimeter column? Would you like to explain the
technical "reasoning" behind that one for me?
edit on 16-9-2010 by bsbray11 because: (no reason given)